State Establishment of Religion

It works though, that's why you can type this stuff on the internet, take your meds, fly in an aircraft, watch TV etc etc. I notice you didn't use your god to try and explain all the stuff which you claim - wrongly - that science can't explain. Just wait a while and science wil explain everything and then you will have nowhere to hide.

 

True, there is no evidence of unicorns flying around some hidden planet, but there is unassailable evidence of a universe that we live in

So where did physics come from? We are still learning about biological evolution but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with mythology.

Stephan Hawking, for one of thousands like him (or almost), talked extensively about a God created and centered universe, though he did not conclude for certain that is how it went. There is no physical evidence of how the universe began.

 

The wait could be billions of years, and by then all humans, the entire earth and the sun will likely be long gone.

 

Yes, we have evidence that there is a universe. Did you finish your thought?

Nobody knows. What is gravity? Is it a particle of some kind or a property of matter? Its ok to live without knowing some things.

Agreed. That is why I am a bit critical of theistic evolution.

Hawking is an atheist and wrote a book about how God probably doesn't exist. He thought the universe spontaneously appeared like particles do in quantum mechanics.

 

the only problem is that it hasn't been a switch from christian to naturalist.. it's been christian to anti christian which is every bit as unconstitutional...

 

Specifically what is taught in schools that is anti-Christian?

 

the unproven idea that all life was formed by evolution from nothing to microscopic organisms to multi cell organisms to advance life forms currently culminating in human beings.. a series of events which no one has observed and is accepted by faith by the scientific community.

as one example.

 

Science isn't anti-Christian. In fact most evolutionists in America are Christians. They believe that God guided the process of evolution. Just because life evolved doesn't mean Christianity isn't real or that God doesn't exist.

 

Yawn. the problem is you have to accept evolution by faith same exact way religious people hold their views by faith.


Adaptation of species has been observed... Evolution has not Evolution is a religion that has to be accepted by faith and as such should not be taught in schools as means of the origins of life which is how it is taught. religion taught in school point blank

 

Lets assume for the moment that I accept the theory of evolution completely on faith. How does that make evolution anti-Christian as you claimed, when most evolutionists are Christian?

 

please provide evidence that most evolutionists are christian...

we don't have to assume anything... it's a matter of fact that if you believe it you accept it by faith end of story...

here is a fact.. people believe evolution not on the basis of compelling evidence but because anti christian agendas have grabbed ahold of it and push it hard not for the sake of evolution but to use it as proof there is no God and thus gives them legitimacy to push an evil agenda..

 

38% of the population believes that humans evolved with God's help. Out of those, 84% are Christian. 19% believe that humans evolved without God's help. 17% are Christian. When you do the math, it comes out to 62% of evolutionists are Christian.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

And most Christians are evolutionist. White catholics are evolutionist by a 68% - 26% margin, white mainline protestants are evolutionist by a 78% - 15% margin, and hispanic catholics are evolutionist by a 53% - 31% margin. The only Christians groups that lean creationist are black protestants who are creationist by a narrow 50% - 44% margin, and white evangelicals who are creationist by 64% - 27% margin.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

 

Looks like "Christians don't read their Bibles"

 

Or maybe they just interpret it differently than you do. You claimed that evolution is based on an anti-Christian agenda. How is this agenda successful when most evolutionists are Christian and most Christians are evolutions? Who exactly made this agenda that failed so spectacularly?

 

Most "Christians" believing evolution is just evidence evolutionists have been effective in spreading their religion.

 

Yes, evolution is a very popular belief that is widely held by people in developed nations. But you were claiming it was anti-Christian. Evolution obviously isn't anti-Christian if most Christians believe in evolution and most evolutionists are Christian. Just because we evolved from a common ancestor doesn't mean God wasn't involved or that he doesn't exist. If all you have is evolution, you still have to explain where the first life came from, where our planet which is perfect for life came from, and where the universe came from. Most people, even when they accept evolution, believe that God is involved in this, others do not.

 

i am claiming it's popularization has been the result not of science but of political agendas that are anti Christian.


humans have never observed one species in nature changing into another species. people believe it happens based on faith

 

Who exactly made up this agenda? Name me a name. And even if they thought evolution was anti-Christian, and tries to use it against Christianity, its obvious they are wrong. Evolution in no way discounts a creator and could easily just be the tool of the creator. Most evolutionists are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists so whoever made this agenda was obviously wrong and failed completely.

 

your missing what I am saying ... nevermind but if you want a name i'll give you one of many.. John Lenon

 

I presented you with some links showing quite a few examples of minor speciation. I do want to address this claim about the fossil record. The reason the fossil record is incomplete is because its really difficult for some bones to survive millions of years. If you eat some fried chicken, and throw the bones in your back yard, the bones will disintegrate completely within just a few years. It is only very rare occasions that bones last longer than that, and even rarer that they last millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of years. We also have not dug everywhere yet, and the vast majority of bones are certainly undiscovered.

I'm going to quote something from Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation."

If you believe in a being who is completely outside the realms of our universe and is completely undetectable, its basically impossible to scientifically falsify or test this being scientifically. To be able to test the God hypothesis, we would need to generate a falsifiable prediction from the idea that God exists and created the universe, and then devise a scientific test. If this prediction is confirmed by the test, the God hypothesis is more likely, if the test fails, the God hypothesis is less likely. We have devised no such test because God is outside our universe and supposedly made our universe from some timeless supernatural realm. Even if we invalidated every hypothesis we have on the universe's creation, that still doesn't support the God hypothesis because maybe another theory we don't know of is true.

In the same way, the transformers mothercube creating the universe isn't a falisfiable scientific hypothesis. These ideas are philosophical conjectures or religious beliefs held on faith and are not science in any way.

 

Hmm the biggest US event in the last decade that dominated the news of late is the result of a new species and furthermore one of the major concerns in world wide is a virus bats carry that mutated to infect humans. Furthermore, of great concern is that the current strain virus for which test to identify those infected or the compounds behind developed for treatment, or vaccines to prevent contagion will all be rendered ineffective if the strain mutates enough. In fact it is being reported that 8 strains are now being tracked.
https://hamodia.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-small-mutations-now-8-strains-doctors-say/
Mutations and change in any species is partially a product of how quickly new reproductions resulting in new generations occurs.
It is well known that bacteria not only has a rapid rate of reproduction, but when subjected to anti bacterial agents, may have individuals with mutations that have high resistance to those agents, resulting in bacteria strains where those agents are ineffective.
As for larger organisms and direct observations of natural selection, the first example I was introduced to in school was that of the Peppered Moth, one of the early observations of natural selection in London in the 1800’s reported then to be an example case supporting Darwin’s work.
Humans have long been aware of the general principles of natural selection, when they have acted as agents of the selection process by breeding selective generations of domestic animals, introducing species change by selecting offspring with desirable characteristics for matting pairs to create successive generations having those characteristics. You can even see the effects of natural selection on humans... look at clothing from 100 to two hundred years ago and you will see humans have increased in stature, not only because of improved nutrition, but because height is perceived to be a desirable feature when selecting mates.
As for an anti Christian agenda, there are some I am sure may have one, but the teaching of science, including evolution is more about teaching a pragmatic way of accumulating beneficial knowledge. It was those people applying the scientific methodology that is responsible for building the technology that surrounds you, not knowledge you obtained from religious belief.
Now for those that still insist on a God for creation and further insist one the idea if intelligent design, you might consider that a more intelligent design is to create the universe with the mechanisms built in that resulted in the emergence of life, and the mechanism of natural selection that allowed for life to perfectly perfectly adapt to it’s ever changing changing environment to produce a creature capable of rational thinking and one that applies the scientific method as a means of adaptation, and one that will solve the virus problem to we can survive and move on to enable the continued debate of God vs Science.
BTW, what would be a testable hypotheses for answering the question, is there a God?

 

Natural selection and the adaptation of species is far different than evolution as the origins of all life.

 

Anyone that is fully immersed in the understanding of theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism resulting the the diversity of life, or what has been folded into the term evolution as an agent of the origin of life. The process of Natural Selection applied, requires life to first exist, second to be able to reproduce with variation in the species, and third variable environmental pressures resulting in differences in that variation to provide a selective advantage in successive generations.
As for the term evolution, it was not a term he would use for his theory; he referred to existing species to have been a product of ‘descent with modification. The word evolution already existed and was applied
prior to Darwin’s published ‘Adaptation of the Species’. While many associate the word evolution with Darwin, that association, I am not sure, is one he’d wanted.
https://blog.oup.com/2015/05/word-evolution-etymology/
As for his concepts of natural selection resulting in speciation, change as a product of naturalization has been observed many times. Most people dismissing evolution have no understanding of what the term has come to mean nor the how much the consistent supporting body of supporting evidence from geology, geography, chemistry, paleontology, biology, and physics makes it one of the best explanative models for explaining the similarities and differences of life species we see today. If there is a God as the designer, either it’s a clever deceiver that so effectively placed the evidence designed to fool, or leveraged the underlying principles we have ascertained thus far to result in our world.

 

I understand and agree with that completely. But lack if evidence, no matter the cause, is still lack of evidence. As you said you can't proof things by simply filling in the blanks from your own imagination or conjecture. There are serious holes and blanks in the theory of evolution.

There is one seemingly minor but actually significant misstatement. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability should say the two primary features of proving a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability. With that I agree there is no way to prove the hypothesis that a God created and designed the universe, or for that matter any hypothesis about the creation of the universe. Just like for the same reason there is no way to prove anthropological global warming. But analysis can move a hypothesis to a theory, and, while still not proof, goes a long way toward confidence. The creation of the universe by whatever process is still a long way from even a theory, but what I am asserting is a Gd created universe is as likely the correct physical/scientific hypothesis as any other. It is as worthy of scientific explanation in the classroom as any other.

 

It is true that the fossil record does limit the amount of evidence for evolution. However, thankfully it is complete enough to provide a lot of evidence. For example we have a lot of fossils for human evolution that clearly shows evolution happened.

That isn't what the encyclopedia said. Tt said that the hypothesis must be falsifiable and testable, not that proving it is falsifiable and testable. One problem is that proving any crazy idea is falsifiable and testable by definition. Theoretically proving the flying pink unicorn world can be imagined in a falsifiable and testable way, but that doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis.
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

"For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation."
https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

I may have thrown around the word proof, but science rarely uses proof. Usually in science, you just have evidence, which was deried from testing a hypothesis, and only makes the hypothesis more likely. Strong theories like evolution have a lot of evidence and are near 100% likely.

You can't compute likelyhood for ideas with no evidence. For example, if discussing what gravity actually is, tiny little micro-men might seem just as likely as midi-chlorians from Star Wars. But we can't really say that these ideas are at all likely, or even what their likelihood even is. They don't deserve to be considered scientific hypothesis or taught in science classrooms.

Classrooms aren't supposed to teach scientific hypotheses and should be focused on theories, laws, and observations that have been established. Usually there isn't enough time to teach all of science and an incredible condensced coursework has to be created. To teach a bunch of unverified science is just taking time away from time we could be spending learning about things we have verified.

That is why creationism is best discussed in a philosophy and comparative religions course because these fields have looked at the idea of God quite extensively.